a) all amplifiers sound the same
All good amplifiers driving a load within their capacity and within their limits do not affect the sound, at least not to ANY perceivable or audible level. As soon as you throw too much voltage or current into the mix, amplifiers can sound very different. However there of course exist many a poor amplifier. Upstairs I've got an old sony receiver that can not properly damp otherwise easy to drive 8 ohm speakers and thus sounds muddy and unresolving. It also has a very poor signal to noise ratio which may further take away detail.
b) all seedee players sound the same
Assuming the CD Player has a digital output, all CD players' digital outputs will sound the same. The digital to analog converter however can sound very different.
c) all cables sound the same
Unless they're specifically designed to color the sound, all ordinary cables have zero effect on the sound. There do exist "audiophile" cables with specific properties which exist to "mask the highs" for example. This is essentially using a cable as EQ and no different from "turning the treble down".
d) only loudspeakers have appreciable differences
Assuming the other electronics are at the very least decent, loudspeakers, record players, digital to analogue converters, and rooms are the four components most capable of having an audible effect on sound quality. The fact is that the distortion introduced by a loudspeaker and its room interaction is FAR greater than the distortion introduced by any other well-functioning aspect of a system.
What I'd look for in each component is
Blu-Ray player - Ideally I'd like a conversion of TrueHD/DTS Master to LPCM in order to lessen the load on the processor, but that's literally pointless and only has to do with the fact that older processors don't like the newer codecs (My SR6003 for example can't do Audessey and DTS Master at the same time, but can do LPCM and AUdessey at the same time)
CD Player - Digital PCM output, no playback skipping
Processor DAC - Conversion of TrueHD/DTS Master/PCM to analogue with high resolution and transparency. Also like quality room correction and parametric EQ abilities to have the ability to deal with more extreme room issues. Quality speaker setup is a MUST.
Processor Pre-amp - No intentional colorations, tons of dynamic headroom, high channel separation, extremely low noise. Preferably fully balanced output.
Interconnect Cable - not much, but i'd prefer a balanced (XLR) connection
Amplifier - high channel separation, gain structure where noise is low in conjunction with pre-amp, lots of damping and control over transients, ultra-high current capability for extreme impedance swings/dips, high voltage capability with under .05% THD for lots of dynamic headroom, good power efficiency, flat frequency response +/- .5db from 10hz to 25000hz (this should be a given but isn't because of dumb audiophiles), preferably fully differential.
Speaker Cable - sufficient wire guage for distance for minimal signal loss, flexible, and fits well into a binding post.
Loudspeaker - this is far more complex and would take an essay to explain because loudspeakers simply introduce the most distortion, plain and simple. As a general rule, if a speaker does not even measure relatively flat on axis in frequency response in a good measurement location (ideally an anechoic chamber but also outside), then it's simply too poor a speaker to even bother auditioning, as it introduces too much coloration to ever sound right without EQ. Some dumb audiophiles try to EQ their speakers with specific cables and amplifiers which intentionally introduce their own colorations. These dumb audiophiles think that by mixing the right components they can get the right "synergy". These same people wouldn't touch a GEQ or PEQ if their lives depened on it, even though that is a far more effective route in controlling a poorly measuring speaker. Frequency response isn't the only important measurement out there. Group Delay, Cabinet measurements, polar response, etc are all important in their own ways. This brings us to this thread: Jerry probably bought the europas to determine for himself how important the measurable concept of absolute time coherency is. Obviously most speakers have some level of time coherency, but the claims of the Green Mountains is that they're absolutely time coherent. Obviously the other measurements still indicate a lot about the speaker's performance.
Room Interaction - Some loudspeakers are less dependant on room interaction than others.. this is all about control over directivity from my understanding. The final goal should be an ambient effect where the room is neither too absorbing nor too reflecting.
e) SS is superior to vacuum tube amplification
It requires exponentially less maintenance and dollar for dollar generally has far more true unclipped output capability. Solid state tends to be less sensitive to the electro-mechanical characteristics of the accompanying speaker. A high power tube may be 60w into 8 ohms. This IMO is not enough headroom for reference level listening unless you've got like 95db sensitive 8 ohm speakers. The sound of a tube will also change over time, at which point a tube is not considered to function properly as an amplfier.
f) digital is superior to analog
Yes. an SACD for example will have more information than even the finest vinyl. HOWEVER more good vinyl come from a time and circle where mastering was arguably much better, so a well mastered record will certainly sound better than a poorly or averagely mastered CD. Digital as it is right now just has more resolution ability and is less prone to time-erosion.
The caveat to this is that the music we hear is always going to be analogue. Therefore we must still have a quality digital to analog conversion somewhere in the system for the capabilities of digital to be realized. A single DAC is preferable to cascading DACs/ADCs because all DACS, like record styli, are a necessary evil.
